Actually this business about language is very difficult to pin down, albeit very important. Thus, we see an evolution of the use of terms for outcast/discriminated-against groups, whereby a term comes into use to replace an earlier term that has come to be viewed as pejorative. After a while the new term also can come to be so viewed and gets replaced by yet another. The extreme of this is when we see a once-derided term (or something similar to it) resurfacing to become a newly acceptable term to replace something else. Thus "People of Color" is now acceptable, although "colored" went through a long period of being viewed as racist (although it persists in the title of the NAACP). Likewise both "black" and "Negro" have come in and out of favor more than once. And in another category we have the somewhat bizarre emergence of using the term "queer" as acceptable, although it is not quite clear that is quite yet acceptable for a non-queer to call a gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual, etc. person "queer." And, of course, some African-Americans proudly call themselves "Niggas", but it certainly remains very unacceptable for anybody else to use such a term, or its very close cousin (except maybe in Huck Finn). Barkley Rosser On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 00:20:14 -0400 zippycat at erols.com wrote:
>
>
> Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> > Ingrid,
> >
> > >It's a simple fact that because the nature of prostitution is to receive
> > >pay for servicing pleasure, rather than offering pleasure for pleasure's
> > >sake, it is a natural metaphor for any act undertaken for purely monetary
> > >motives and in that context has entered the dictionary as a secondary
> > >definition.
> >
> > One more thing. There is nothing natural about using prostitution as a
> > metaphor for 'any act undertaken for purely monetary motive.' You don't
> > really understand the nature of capitalism and wage labor if you think sex
> > work is a 'natural metaphor' for 'any act undertaken for purely monetary
> > motive.' Many workers, not just prostitutes, receive pay for 'servicing
> > pleasure.' And many (if not most) acts are undertaken for purely monetary
> > motive under capitalism. Think Wall Street.
> >
> > Yoshie
>
> Yes, of course you're right. I shouldn't have said "natural metaphor";
> perhapsstrong metaphor, maybe even ugly or cruel metaphor, would have been
> more
> to the point. But I was thinking about the nature of capitalism, wage labor,
> and Wall Street in particular when I launched into my rather foolish diatribe.
>
> Of course many workers, not just sex workers, receive pay for servicing
> pleasure.
> But no other workers lay themselves so literally and vulnerably bare to
> receive
> their wages. Which is why, no matter how much we may try to improve the
> terminology, being a sex worker will always be a potent metaphor for selling
> out. Prostitution, or whatever you want to call it, represents the ultimate
> commodification of human activity--which is why so many Wall Street workers
> (yes, I also maintain friendships in that industry) love to call themselves
> "whores"
> and "prostitutes", and why the libertarian right loves to imagine all sex
> workers
> as self-empowered entrepreneurs.
>
> I guess what bothered me most about the various exchanges re Wotjek's
> original offensive comment was my perception that too many on the left
> seem to think that if we could only repair the language we could change the
> world.
> As the noted leftist theorist Bill James (well, maybe not) pointed out (and I
> wish
> I could cite my source but I can't), the term "mentally retarded" entered the
>
> language from above, in an attempt to salve the "discourse" of the pejorative
> connotations of "cretinism." Did it do the trick? No, kids just started
> taunting
> each other with the term "retard" (or if you're from Baltimore like myself,
> "mental").
> I want the kinds of changes that just about everyone else on this list
> advocates.
> It's just that I think that too many leftists are overly verbalistic in their
> approach.
> Perhaps I'm an optimist in even thinking that if we could get our argue
> better,
> we might convince a sufficient number of Americans of the correctness of our
> positions. But that sometimes involves using strong metaphors and not always
> the
> proper and presently benign terms du jour. Maybe we've grown so used to
> arguing amongst each other that it doesn't matter how trivial these
> discussions seem
> to those on the outside. In any case, I certainly welcome your criticisms.
>
> In solidarity,
>
> Ingrid
>
>
>
>
>
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu